lol yeah with my 4080 super and ryzen 7800x3d , i can get 150+ frames in doom eternal , WITH Ray tracing turned on and no dlss. yet games that look only half as nice will barely get to 60fps ...what is ID's secret i wonder?
@@user99i dude it's alitle more than just optimazation. i have a bachelors in game art design. there is some coding wizardry going on there as well because the CPU is not even taxed in doom 2016 or doom eternal, and i've seen the cpu get used heavily in other games that utlize Vulkan api. yeah i get it alot of games today are not well optimized . like Jedi Survivor. but there is soemthign above and beyond optimization that ID is doing . rather it's in the clode or the visuals .. you ahve to admit that the folks at ID are jsut then number 1's in theri fields because that game jsut oozes experience in it's crafting. they know some next level shit that other studios don't.
@@user-bo3mp8un6c well optimisation of code and optimisation of visual assets are two different things. visual asset optimisation will net you about 20-25 fps at most (if you are already getting deccent enough frames 5-15 frames if you're getting bad frames from the starting point ). but since i'm not a coder and only know the basics of coding. i'm assuming some wizardry is going on with doom's coding above and beyond just optimizing it . coding is where it's the ahrdest to optimize things. because if a command is needed in the code to make something haappen in game how do you cut that down? suffice to say dooms massive frame rates , far exceed what is possible on just visual optimisations alone.
@@bearlyismyname I literally play Crysis 2 and 3 Remastered on Xbox Series S just fine. Performance mode also runs Crysis 1 pretty well, heck Crysis can even run in the switch (barely). If we can run games like that on modern consoles, there’s no excuse for this crap.
A lot of people forget to mention that even at 1080p, the requirements are becoming more demanding. For this reason, i don't think 4k will become the norm anytime soon.
@@drew2626thats fax i cant play cyberpunk 2077 at rt overdrive and RE village on RT ultra with my 4060ti 8gb, vram is overloaded at one setting lower I got insane deal from msi store for $370 i think its a crazy value
You are so wrong. When I grew up a 3 year old computer could just as well be two decades old because it couldnt run anything. Hardware requirements for standard usage has slowed down allot since the 90s. 4k+ is asking allot. Most gamers do not game at such res and therefor dont have the state or the art hardware to do so, nor need to have such.
You need a screen in 90s game, what you were depicting was more like early 80s games. Back in the olden days you do able to get games base on only beeping sounds and the game manual itself.
Players now : "If it's not 4k, 60fps with a polygon count in the billions then it's literally the ugliest game in the century and i will whine about it in the review (for examples of that please refer to elden ring reviews)" players then : "Wow wow wow, this game is in 3d ?! Literally the future"
I think you don't know what you are speaking about. When a wing commander game was released, you literally needed a computed that will be available a year later if you wanted to play it at more than 15 fps. Any computer was obsolete within two years. Nowadays you can play any games with a 10 year old computer if you are smart enough to choose low settings.
@ steam survey says 2% use 4k but that’s pc it’s probably higher on console since it’s easier and people care less about being on a monitor and use a tv which it’s much cheaper to get a 4k tv these days
@@chachachi-hh1ks 4k is not worth the loss in performance over 1440p. You are better off going 1440p with a high refresh rate monitor.. your games will still look and feel better than 1080p while not killing your bank account/gaming performance.
its the opposite you dunning kruger effect. they optimized their game so well that they can use all 16 cores for ai calculations unlike older civs where it calculated for minutes
@@LaSanjaProduccionesyou're both retards. This genre has had this issue for its entire existence. Its not AI, like the first commentor believes. While it does play a part, these games calculate everything through the CPU. Yields. AI. Unit movement. Game events. Current place in history. Everything but the graphics goes through the CPU. Because it has to. The GPU ONLY does geometry. That's why it's the graphics card. EU4 still runs like shit. Because at a certain point, countries are so large, populations so massive, that resources are being consumed and produced in the billions. You may have 40k units in a single battle. While civ doesn't have the massive stacking of numbers EU4 does everything stays the same. You're eventually at a point where every country has 100+ unit armies. Tons of warheads. 20+ pop cities. Farmland the size of continents all improving each other's Yields, if theyre adjacent to each other. These games arent easy on the CPU. They never were. Never will be. Its not that they're poorly optimized, but what are you going to optimize? Everything is already a streamlined math equation. The games going as efficiently as it can without being written in pure machine code. Which isn't really feasible. Its not 1999. I cant name one grand strategy that didn't have some pretty narly specs if you wanted to play it at it's largest scale.
@LaSanjaProducciones they are the recommended specs so if they have that feature it makes sense they will recommend it. It doesn't mean you cannot play the game with a CPU that's not that powerful...
@@aratherlargerodent maybe, but there is no way a pc with the second best gpu, and one of the best CPU for gaming, should not be able to handle 4k. If anything Thats an optimisation issue from the developer, which should never be accepted. I've played civ since I was a child, I've got over 1000h in civ5 and 6 combined, which makes it together my most played game on steam. If i cant play in 4k, i ain't gonna buy it.
It's a turn based strategy games. When you end turn, it needed processing power to decide what AI faction will do. 16cores are just recommended. Technically you can run it with 4-6core but when approaching turns 200+ games with 10+ AI faction might take your 4-6core PC around 1mins to finish everything. A 16 core PC might ended up finishing it within 5sec. I can verify this with civ6. As turns go beyond 1k turns with maxed AI and biggest map, it would take my 5900x around 30sec-1mins to finish even though at the start it just finished within 5sec
Na it's just these types of games are very taxing on the hardware. And it's recommendations for 4k60fps Ultra. I think 1440p and 1080p requirements are somewhat reasonable.
It can run on 4 cores the devs are just saying it can utilize a 16 core 5950x. A 7800 x3d would run the game well it might just be slow if your playing against a ton of civilizations late game. I would say this is promising for it's performance as civ6 was to single core heavy
I have as much optimism for quantum computer as I have in nuclear fusion energy generation. We are yet to make a functional prototype for either ( no nuclear fusion reactor has ever output more energy than what is shoved into it to try and make it run ).
Devs are using the advancements in hardware to get away with poor optmization. AAA gaming also has a stupid obcession with realism. Artstyle is more important than realism.
@@Rivershield it's civ. EVERYTHING is art style. Literally nothing about it scream realism. This is a turn base strategy. not fps tarkov. Devs answer what 4k 60fps ultra requirement is. If you don't have the hardware. Run it at lower settings. Clearly you're Console kid.
@@RandomPerson-tz7wk no, I'm just extrapolating based on general trends in the industry. There's a general optimization issue in PC gaming and I bet this game is also a victim of it
@@Rivershield this trend have exist from the very first game. It's not new or recent. Except people forget all the other games in the past because they're not worth remembering. And it's all about reputation. Faraxis don't pump out games every year like every other major AAA company and so far every game they've made is polish and stable from day one.
To be fair, Civ has always benefited from a higher core count. The amount of calculations that are being made when you have 10+ players with 100's of troops... it's a lot. I bet we'll see similar requirements fron Total War as well this gen
So true. Its basically a calculator making millions of calculations, specially whenever the AI is playing. Imagine playing Civ 7 on the government mega pc tho...
It depends if it's a straight port or a remake. Consol ports have also always run poorly because of console architecture needing another layer running to translate to PC.
@soaringparakeet. This statement is wrong since the P4/X1 because now they have some laptop hardware sliiightly tuned by manufacturer but it stay same chip as computer. No more powerPc like the P3 and other true hardware they was seilling to us
Its like playing chess. Ure just analyzing billions of positions with stockfish so u need many cores. Except civ's ai is so bad at pruning (and lacks NNUE), that it takes forever just to make a shitty move anyway. No optimization whatsoever.
Civ has no AI, just a rulebook database. Civ 7 won't be any different i am afraid. The 'AI' problem is so evident that they decided to make the game simpler so, maybe this time they can properly setup the AI so it can play the game at a decent level. MP is the way. Only viable way anyway. Sadly, this particular game is not exactly Multiplayer friendly.
That's how things used to be man. The gaming industry setting new standards for hardware developers. Oblivion was so greedy (and poorly optimizied) no GPU avilable was able to handle it w/o risking a fire
Oh don't remind me. I went out and bought a GPU in THE RECOMMENDED category just to play it. Not minimum requirement but recommended. Everything else about my rig was as good or better than recommended. I got home. Installed the card. Installed the game. Got out of the cave into the open world and lost my mind. I was so pissed. Their recommendations were based on like AVG 30 fps at low settings at 640x480. 😅 Turns out the minimum requirement was just to load the game without crashing. Not at all playable with the minimum. Oh and I was so mad that I decided to pirate Skyrim when it came out. 😂 I wasted a lot of money on that card. I could've just upgraded to top teir Nvidia like I ended up doing a few months later. I figured that card must've been good off they recommended it for their new beautiful game.
The statement you are giving isnt tottaly true. Yes video games is giving new standard for hardware but its only consumer sided statement. Hardware manufacturer don't mind if there hardware can handle the last oblivion/crysis/cyberpunk (or if they do its just for increasing the price of the specific hardware wich is doing the job well). Not to mention the phisical limit for what our chip is doing is going close. Wich lead for even less hardware improvement room from manufacturer. Optimisation is a really important job that editors volutary avoid since too long. Now they will just be forced to do it since there is no breaktroug in hardware capacity
Saying a 16 core CPU probably has Intel in mind. Intel chips commonly have 16-24 cores now, even in laptops. But half or more of those are the efficiency cores that you really don't want trying to keep up with the calculations for the AI players.
For the massive strategy games, it's far more CPU bound than GPU. the degree and size of the databases involved are truly staggering. And speaking as one who played original Civ at launch, had my first all-night gaming sessions on "just one more turn" games, and consider grand strategy the true masterpieces of computer gaming ... MOAR CORES!
That’s odd. I checked Steam, and they mentioned a low-tier CPU, the Ryzen 3600X, as recommended, along with an RTX 2060 GPU. So, when we launch the game in 4K, the pressure will be on the GPU, not the CPU. So why is a more powerful CPU required?.
@@AegieDid you even read the question that the person asked? When you switch from 1080p to 4K the only thing that changes are the graphics. When you go from ultra low to ultra high settings the amount of calculations the game makes doesn't change.
Its not only devs that are lazy... Editors pressure them alot and dont let them optimize. Last but not least, optimisation require alot of knowlege and the industry work like each buisness have his own r&d wich fall inevitably into 80% of games are optimisation junk.
Not gonna deny that games are poorly optimized nowadays but if you ever played an strategy game like this you know the CPU is way more taxed than the GPU and the more you progress the more demanding it gets, the fact that it supposedly scales up to 32 threads is actually impressive. Requiring a 4070 is way more egregious than requiring a 16 core CPU even for 4K since these games also don't use to have the best graphics.
I think devs are getting lazy with optimizing their games. Remember when pokemon games ran on 15MB cards? Theres no reason a game like Civilization should need a 4070 and 16 cores. The game should not be even close to that demanding. Edit: Apparently after a long argument in the comments, you all seem to completely miss my point. Civilization is a game that should NOT require this type of hardware to run on it. The comparison was meant to compare how incredibly optimized and lower spec friendly games used to be. You’re treating this like I compared Cyberpunk to Flashgames but didn’t understand why I need a 4090 to run Cyberpunk if my pc can run flash games. Clearly theres a massive difference, but it was meant to emphasize the point I was making. Have we fallen so far that people don’t understand what exaggeration is?
while I don't disagree with your statement of some devs being lazy with optimization, the comparison make no sense at all. You're comparing a game from the late 90s to a game in 2024. Of course a game with 2d sprites is gonna take up less space and need less power than a fully 3d game with high quality textures
most of the memory is taken by textures, if you want lower vram usage simply lower the texture quality and terrain quality. I don't understand what do you mean by optimization. These games were using much less VRAM because their textures were bad! its not about optimization!
Whilst that's a good counter point to be said, it's really poor. There is a strong emphasis on the lack of skill nowadays, especially considering using OP's main point, as Gen 2 managed to optimise very well to the point where we had 2 regions in for a small memory cartridge. Compare that level of skill to the skill now and it makes no sense why current devs are this bad, even so with the advancements in dev tools. @@ChocoBidoof
A large reason for past optimisation to that point was the lack of a game engine like unity or Godot which while making development easier does make games run slower which is made up for with modern processing power, but yeah I still agree a lot of Devs don't bother with optimisation too hard but there's also a concept in game design where you try to optimise a game and actually make it worse in other areas a fun way to learn about this is to search for a yt video titled something like removing super mario 64s "optimisation" where they remove what Nintendo thought were optimisations to make the game run significantly better on a N64.
That sounds exciting actually A massive triple A game that took a decade+ in the making Imagine the DLCs and outside maps and missions they could have Lmfao it’ll end up being so massive that it could last longer then GTA 5 currently, and longer then your favorite elder Scrolls game
If you can why wouldn't you? If I paid for the GPU/CPU I'd wanna use the entire component. It'd be nice too if graphics scaled dynamically, drops graphics as the game gets into the late stage of hella Ai and map on screen to maintain above 30 or 60fps. :p
Zach should do a part 2 on this video explaining WHY 16 is reccomended, its a game big on simulation of hundreds of Ai and player actions per turn. It saying 16 cores is rec. Is normal and can even be a good thing, it means the game engine can scale CPU usage upwards to be closer to 100% usage like GPUs do, meaning less bottleneck where games today use like 100% GPU and 25% of CPU which honestly kinda sucks a lil.
It's still ludicrous. Modern 4x games don't have anything close to that requirement despite being as big or bigger in need. Moreover turn-based systems are inherently limited in the amount they need to do at once - you process one player at a time.
@@erikanybody4298 Civ 6 has simultaneous turns, I assume this will return in civ 7 as it helps speed up the game especially when players aren't even close to each other and not in war. But again it's a reccomended not requirement, they say reccomended but what's likely happening (I'm assuming) is all its saying is the game is able to scale up core usage, if you got it they'll use it, if you don't thats fine, as for being 4k is dependent on GPU and VRAM, so even a lower end cpu can do 4k60 fine, up until the point there's hundreds of Ai actions happening simultaneously calculating stuff. So for example a 4 core PC might be lagging at turn 200 with many Ai on the map. Where as a 16 core would be chugging right through it. (Again just my assumption) but I'm 99.9% it's not required, people are taking it too literally.
@@erikanybody4298watch the video again. That's the recommend for 4k 60fps. Pretty reasonable. Assuming that everything is at max setting. You can still play it at 1080, 1440, with 60fps with lower hardware. They recommend i5 10th gen 16gb for standard setting. For potato is the i5 4th Gen with 8gb as the minimum.
@RandomPerson-tz7wk Not to mention it's (likely) more just regarding how late game it is, later game = more Ai, thats when Civ 6 will start lagging. You can have an old low core cpu itll run it fine but you'll start feeling it in the later turns like 200/400.
@@MVPMTKING no amount of optimization can solve that unless the devs make the ai more dumber/simple in late game. The only way to solve the late game would be placing hard limit on units for the whole game like every other rts.
Requirements for 1080p/1440p are also just getting worse these days. It's simply an optimization problem. A game like CIV shouldnt have these requirements even at 4k 60fps.
Here's a disagreement, The game which has been mentioned needs more CPU power than GPU. Just look at it, how many different types of objects are there in just one view. It's an appreciation that some developers figured out how they can use more than 4 cores efficiently.
I mean the fact civilization of all games is particularly CPU intensive isn't surprising because strategy games in general tend to, it might make for the one game where the 7950x3d is the best gaming cpu 😂
It's a fucking (very fun) turn based glorified tabletop game series. How much of a resource hog do your models and ai have to be that you need 16 fucking cores to make them need that much power to run at 60 frames? Are they mining crypto in the background?
It's the best chip for FPS games where there aren't many processes to calculate, but in a heavy strategy game where you have different AI players, you're better with more cores that do little calculations
Or the engine is basing a lot of things on the CPU. I'm not into continuously checking CPU and GPU benchmarks anymore but I think Civ 6 turn times are dependant on the CPU. I think gamer's Nexus had benchmarks on them. The bot logic or "classic" AI enemies are trying to win a complex game of chess against you. It requires complex decision trees to be solved. If their data set is big enough or they are using a lot of variables you need that absurd amount of simultaneous multiprocessing on hand. With a crap load of RAM. If it is justified and the AI turn calculations are pretty good and sensible then I think the high requirements are justified. If you want quick turns. If this isn't the case... Somebody should set a bonfire infront of the sutido in a dingus shape....
Would be if it was an mmo and not a strategy game where you have to simulate a lot of AI doing different things at the same time. Most people just don't play strategy games enough to know cpu bottle necks has always been their crutch. Back in the day they many didn't even support muti core processors making them lag like crazy. Imagine an army of 1 million soldier with different skills and abilities fight against another 1 million strong army with also different skills and actions. Most if not all pcs except epyc cpus will proly blue screen lol But you are right optimization should really be a standard in the industry
Have people really forgotten that this is how game evolution always was? Upgrading your PC was always more or less a response to newer, more advanced and more demanding games. The issue is hardware prices escalating like crazy. People want better and bigger games, but dont want to upgrade their hardware with them. I'd say, that is a gamer issue. And yes, I do also acknowledge the optimization issue. But there should always be an increase in hardware demands. Otherwise no real development has happened. I mean, my 6 core 12 thread (i7 8700K) machine struggles with Civ 6 when you get into the last part of the game as so much of the map is revealed and so much things need to be calculated.
Its a Civlilization game, you can play it well at 20 fps, the only thing that would matter would be the time to advance another turn, which could very well minutes on older hardware, in late game
I dont understand a thing why gaming companies dont optimize their game everybodies are not rich it is to understand by gaming companies sad but reality 😢😢
Zach can you please make a vid detailing what cpu “cores” and “threads” mean? Odds are low that you even see this comment but if you do itd be much appreciated. Big fan by the way.
"Cores" mean the amount of brains that the cpu have And "threads" mean the speed that the brains perform Like 8 cores 16 threads mean that it has 8 brains and they perform like it is 16.
@@BernardoHenr919 not entirely true, tmk hyperthreading has always been more like a 30% performance boost, with the main reason it was done being to increase efficiency
The issue to me is the fact that companies put 0 effort into optimization. Now that we have DLSS and FSR, it has made it EVEN WORSE because they rely on you using one of these. Rather than idk, actually optimizing for different types of hardware 😂 they just crank the recommended specs so they can say, "Your system doesn't meet the required specs" when their game runs terribly even for high end hardware.
Lol I still have a 2080Ti (that is a now, 6 year old GPU) and when I look at these for newer games, the 2080Ti equivalent, or really the 3070-3070Ti can always run these games at Ultra, 1440p and 60fps or High, 1440p and 120fps. And it’s always spot on. Im upgrading soon, but this card is still out here killin it for me and keeping my hobby going. And it came out SIX years ago lol
that's not the proplem, like other grand strategy and 4x games civ is very heavy on cpu bec of it's complex simlation that needs lot of complex calculations to run which in turn needs a lot of cpu power so it's bec of it's complex simlation not grafics (which stil needs cpu power on top of the complex simlation)
@@mohamed_alaa- I don't want to play 4k and this is not my issue. I'm just generally saying that games should be optimized better since a game like CIV shouldn't need a 4070 to play 4k.
Civ is a totally different game than say a shooter or rpg. On huge maps in the endgame there are hundreds and thousands of troops that have to be moved. More and faster cores means less time waiting for the npcs to make their moves.
@@despairdx lil bro where are we going eventually? Hyper realistic games aren't a new thing, the 5090 at best is supposed to be the last gpu because it would literally be the most powerful stuff on the planet. Achieving further will eventually be useless because limits are set.
Brother did you not comprehend the video? That's for reccomended so it doesn't lag late game when there's hella player and Ai actions being done. The minimum is a ryzen 3 1200 4 core (2017 cpu) this is pretty forgiving. And minimum GPU is RX 460, an extremely low end 8 year old GPU by today's standard.
@@MVPMTKING nah I got the video but cores and threads are usually less important for gaming so having a game that needs 16 cores and 32 threads to run even if its at max settings 4k is just insane. especially considering the 7800x3d is the best gaming cpu and only has 8 cores
Intel shines here. 14700k with it's 20 cores can do this with ease IF proper settings are in place for the microcode. I own the 14700k and have yet to experience ANY issues.
You could play Civ at 20fps and it’s totally playable. There’s no real time reactions needed, plus it’s always been brutal on the CPU calculating all the turns that are needed.
Games like civ or anno are notoriously difficult to run because while it's not a scientific simulation, it's constantly simulating everything going on. That's why they suggest having such a high core count. Also the 32 gigs of ram is linked with the core count. As a general rule of thumb you don't want less than 2gb of ram per core.
True but another part of it is that people's standard have increased when playing games, with most people wanting to play from 1440p to 4K, back then people mostly played on 1080p that's why games can run fine than they are now. My point is the Resolution is another factor. And of course the demanding system spec most games want nowadays.
Devs (project manager?) have lost interest in optimizing the game. If it can't be done within a certain amount of time, just increase the requirements. If there's a memory leak, the game just requires more RAM
I believe its optimised for 16 cores. Keep in mind it turned based so its not like you will get crap frames the turns will most likely just take longer.
A simulation game like civ uses the CPU to simulate the economy, populations, AIs and many other things that can’t be run on GPU. Other games use small CPU simply because all they do is process graphics and their logic is not well optimized for multi-core processor even though the industry direction has been adding more and more cores. Civ using so much core is a good sign because its means that the code is well optimized and the dev knows what they are doing. I work with simulations and processing huge amount of data and its pretty common to work with thousands of CPU cores
those strategy games are crazy. Crusader King 3 in high setting(1080p) can insta draw 90%+ usage of my 32G rams and rx 6600. And it's straight from a new game start not in some late game stage.
Strategy games were always more CPU intensive, that's why. On the other hand, Civilization is a series with a lot of players (especially casual players), so the system specs feels overkill to most of their target audience. Also, if Civ VII follows the same DLCs approach and update cycle than the previous game, it will receive new content for about a decade, so I guess that Firaxis (the developer) wants to make sure the game is future-proof (and in about five years or so, these recommended specs will be much less absurd than they are today).
Its been a recent thing that people have been expecting games to run at max settings right away. Most of PC gaming history company's aim max settings for hardware that isnt even out yet. Crysis anyone? Doom 3's max settings required 512mb of Vram. Only 1 card had that and That card had just came out. Digital Foundry has a video called "Do You Really Need Ultra Settings? What To Keep, What To Cut" from 6 years ago. Just set the graphics preset to "High" or "Medium" and play the game. You would probably need side by side comparisons to tell the diff anyway.
I'm just glad that they set requirements for 16 cores. That means that they have put in a lot of work to parallelize the calculations to actually use the CPU efficiently.
They have Mac version coming but given how complex it is, it’ll be Apple Silicon exclusive. And you’ll likely need Max or higher version of the Apple Silicon to play at max res and framerate.
The requirements are increasing, but also the players expectations about the games. When Skyrim was released I thought it was such a good looking game. At 1080p. I never imagined playing a game in 4K at 60 fps back then
Here's an example of the system requirements being unrealistic. My husband and I can't really afford damanding or top of the line PCs. He's been playing space marines 2 and helldivers with an i7 7700k, 16gb of ram, and a gtx 970. He's not playing in 4k cause he thinks it's overrated, but he's been playing high on 1080p. No issues. I think it's more the numbers of those parts and performance that dictates the game vs the actual parts. It doesn't help that pc and game companies forget that a large majority of their fan/player base can't afford the newer stuff.
It's funny how many people say that dinky little cpu is the beat gaming cpu, it's not. It's the best at a certain price point. We are moving towards gaming that is going to get more and more resource intensive.
A lot of rts, Builder games and driving/flying sims are really cpu heavy and a 7800x3d is really only half a processor designed around low latency. Thats why it wins in most games and gets dragged in almost everything else. A game that wants 16 cores to me tells me it is at least programmed well enough to take advantage of modern hardware even if it is really demanding.
How does this man not understand that having more events cycling in the background for world building can require extra threads. Wow this is the direction that all games are going to facilitate immersion, it absolutely depends on the amount of different calculations required for randomization or to scale with the players abilities. I’m sure the game will still play with Less, but it will chop out some of the higher end features which probably also require a bit of AI running on the system.
As someone who plays simulation type games far more than the typical FPS shooter I shake my head when everyone professes 8-core cpus as all you will ever need, and 16 cores are reserved for “productivity”.
System requirements were a lot worse 20 years ago though. Had to update your pc like every two years just to be able to play new games, unless 10 fps was ok for you. Now it's more like 4+ years for updates. More if you can tolerate the lowest settings.
I play cyberpunk at 1080p ultra settings with my gtx 1660ti. Fsr quality and frame gen 3 got me to 80fps with no input lag added. Amd’s software is a godsend for old card users.
WarThunder or in general Gaijin games, are known for their very good performance while looking good on bad hardware. I think the req. for it is 4GB of RAM. There is no way civ has such giant textures at minimum settings to require 8x that!
Doom requirements:
1. Screen
2. Electricity (optional)
lol yeah with my 4080 super and ryzen 7800x3d , i can get 150+ frames in doom eternal , WITH Ray tracing turned on and no dlss. yet games that look only half as nice will barely get to 60fps ...what is ID's secret i wonder?
@@DenverStarkey the secret to those frames is optimization. They have a whole write up on eternal's rendering system. All Doom entries are fantastic
@@user99i dude it's alitle more than just optimazation. i have a bachelors in game art design. there is some coding wizardry going on there as well because the CPU is not even taxed in doom 2016 or doom eternal, and i've seen the cpu get used heavily in other games that utlize Vulkan api.
yeah i get it alot of games today are not well optimized . like Jedi Survivor. but there is soemthign above and beyond optimization that ID is doing . rather it's in the clode or the visuals .. you ahve to admit that the folks at ID are jsut then number 1's in theri fields because that game jsut oozes experience in it's crafting. they know some next level shit that other studios don't.
@@DenverStarkeyWhat do you think optimisation means? You should know that.
@@user-bo3mp8un6c well optimisation of code and optimisation of visual assets are two different things. visual asset optimisation will net you about 20-25 fps at most (if you are already getting deccent enough frames 5-15 frames if you're getting bad frames from the starting point ). but since i'm not a coder and only know the basics of coding. i'm assuming some wizardry is going on with doom's coding above and beyond just optimizing it . coding is where it's the ahrdest to optimize things. because if a command is needed in the code to make something haappen in game how do you cut that down? suffice to say dooms massive frame rates , far exceed what is possible on just visual optimisations alone.
The system requirements in the beginning was the most counterintuitive system I've ever seen 😂😂😂
The vinyl sound card and the doors2025 os killed me😂😂😂
Who’s gonna build a pc just to play that boring game
@@Big-Tyrone69🙋♂️
Threat ripper 💀
@@voyagerannyou might have just made the new Ryzen 4070.
"Can it run Crysis?"
"No, can it run Civ 7"
Lmao Crysis is easier to run thanks to optimization than most modern games, that arguably look worse.
They was the days, best bench mark ever Crysis 1
@tarheelpro87 Crysis has horrible optimization for multi-threading though, and not even the Remaster fixed that
@@bearlyismyname I literally play Crysis 2 and 3 Remastered on Xbox Series S just fine. Performance mode also runs Crysis 1 pretty well, heck Crysis can even run in the switch (barely). If we can run games like that on modern consoles, there’s no excuse for this crap.
What?
Your use of quotations doesn't make sense to me but I am autistic so don't blame me
A lot of people forget to mention that even at 1080p, the requirements are becoming more demanding. For this reason, i don't think 4k will become the norm anytime soon.
Even 8GB VRAM is starting to be not enough for 1080 ultra in some titles
@@drew2626 it barely suffices for most anyway, RE4 on max consumes upwards of 13GB at just 1080p
Snowbreak containment zone needs 32 GB ram in 1080p max settings
Minimum req are entry cpu and gpu from like 7 years ago. I call that reasonable.
@@drew2626thats fax
i cant play cyberpunk 2077 at rt overdrive and RE village on RT ultra with my 4060ti 8gb, vram is overloaded at one setting lower
I got insane deal from msi store for $370 i think its a crazy value
Hardware requirements now:
cpu that doesn’t even exist
Hardware requirements in 1990’s:
screen (optional)
You are so wrong. When I grew up a 3 year old computer could just as well be two decades old because it couldnt run anything. Hardware requirements for standard usage has slowed down allot since the 90s. 4k+ is asking allot. Most gamers do not game at such res and therefor dont have the state or the art hardware to do so, nor need to have such.
You need a screen in 90s game, what you were depicting was more like early 80s games. Back in the olden days you do able to get games base on only beeping sounds and the game manual itself.
Players now : "If it's not 4k, 60fps with a polygon count in the billions then it's literally the ugliest game in the century and i will whine about it in the review (for examples of that please refer to elden ring reviews)"
players then : "Wow wow wow, this game is in 3d ?! Literally the future"
Requirement for Roller Coaster Tycoon:
Being alive (optional)
I think you don't know what you are speaking about. When a wing commander game was released, you literally needed a computed that will be available a year later if you wanted to play it at more than 15 fps. Any computer was obsolete within two years. Nowadays you can play any games with a 10 year old computer if you are smart enough to choose low settings.
A very low percentage of people even play in 4k
or maybe, just maybe, gamers whom you know are just too poor
@ steam survey says 2% use 4k but that’s pc it’s probably higher on console since it’s easier and people care less about being on a monitor and use a tv which it’s much cheaper to get a 4k tv these days
We will feel this at 1440 and 1080p too.
@@chachachi-hh1ks 4k is not worth the loss in performance over 1440p. You are better off going 1440p with a high refresh rate monitor.. your games will still look and feel better than 1080p while not killing your bank account/gaming performance.
i guess now we are calling unoptimization a stylistic choice
its the opposite you dunning kruger effect. they optimized their game so well that they can use all 16 cores for ai calculations unlike older civs where it calculated for minutes
Consequence of the left fake positivity movement
@@atomanni-k5m"you need a workstation grade pc to calculate this games ai" is not the flex you think it is. Talk about dunning kruger.
@@LaSanjaProduccionesyou're both retards.
This genre has had this issue for its entire existence.
Its not AI, like the first commentor believes. While it does play a part, these games calculate everything through the CPU. Yields. AI. Unit movement. Game events. Current place in history. Everything but the graphics goes through the CPU. Because it has to. The GPU ONLY does geometry. That's why it's the graphics card.
EU4 still runs like shit. Because at a certain point, countries are so large, populations so massive, that resources are being consumed and produced in the billions. You may have 40k units in a single battle. While civ doesn't have the massive stacking of numbers EU4 does everything stays the same. You're eventually at a point where every country has 100+ unit armies. Tons of warheads. 20+ pop cities. Farmland the size of continents all improving each other's Yields, if theyre adjacent to each other.
These games arent easy on the CPU. They never were. Never will be.
Its not that they're poorly optimized, but what are you going to optimize? Everything is already a streamlined math equation. The games going as efficiently as it can without being written in pure machine code. Which isn't really feasible. Its not 1999.
I cant name one grand strategy that didn't have some pretty narly specs if you wanted to play it at it's largest scale.
@LaSanjaProducciones they are the recommended specs so if they have that feature it makes sense they will recommend it. It doesn't mean you cannot play the game with a CPU that's not that powerful...
Gaming companies just can’t be assed to optimise games anymore.
@@ArchineOne you can still play on low setting for your potato
@@RandomPerson-tz7wk why’d you bring potato PCs into this and shift the blame on the consumers???
They don’t optimise their games for high end PCs.
You say "potaato," I say "potahto." 🥔
@@RandomPerson-tz7wk We're talking about minimum requirements.
@@RandomPerson-tz7wka potato used to be an integrated graphics card or a lower end one now with your sheep mentality a 3060 is considered a potato
Solution: Don't play in 4K 👍
That ain't a solution. Anything below looks like shit.
@@Jesus117-ov9dlfirst world problem. Most gamer still stick to 1080p.
@@Jesus117-ov9dl You can also lower the graphics quality settings to something other than ultra.
@@Jesus117-ov9dl your standards have been raised too high
@@aratherlargerodent maybe, but there is no way a pc with the second best gpu, and one of the best CPU for gaming, should not be able to handle 4k. If anything Thats an optimisation issue from the developer, which should never be accepted. I've played civ since I was a child, I've got over 1000h in civ5 and 6 combined, which makes it together my most played game on steam. If i cant play in 4k, i ain't gonna buy it.
These devs are crutching new hardware instead of actually optimizing their games 🤦♂️
or maybe its utilizing 16 cores?
@@Ace-Intervention you expect 4k 60fps ultra to be run by 5+ year old hardware?
It's a turn based strategy games. When you end turn, it needed processing power to decide what AI faction will do. 16cores are just recommended. Technically you can run it with 4-6core but when approaching turns 200+ games with 10+ AI faction might take your 4-6core PC around 1mins to finish everything. A 16 core PC might ended up finishing it within 5sec. I can verify this with civ6. As turns go beyond 1k turns with maxed AI and biggest map, it would take my 5900x around 30sec-1mins to finish even though at the start it just finished within 5sec
@@nostrum6410 its fucking CIV man
You obviously just dont realise this title is more CPU bound due to the nature of the genre. Muppet.
An apparent lack of game optimization.
not likely
Na it's just these types of games are very taxing on the hardware. And it's recommendations for 4k60fps Ultra.
I think 1440p and 1080p requirements are somewhat reasonable.
@@Fr33mx it's both. performance issues the entire time civ 6 has existed, on any hardware.
It can run on 4 cores the devs are just saying it can utilize a 16 core 5950x. A 7800 x3d would run the game well it might just be slow if your playing against a ton of civilizations late game.
I would say this is promising for it's performance as civ6 was to single core heavy
@AadhityaUnfiltered by the graphic have little to do with this game
In 100 years, you'll need a quantum computer just to play an 8 bit game
I have as much optimism for quantum computer as I have in nuclear fusion energy generation. We are yet to make a functional prototype for either ( no nuclear fusion reactor has ever output more energy than what is shoved into it to try and make it run ).
Not forget to use dlss 20 or fsr 19 to get stable 30 fps.
Devs are using the advancements in hardware to get away with poor optmization. AAA gaming also has a stupid obcession with realism.
Artstyle is more important than realism.
@@Rivershield it's civ. EVERYTHING is art style. Literally nothing about it scream realism. This is a turn base strategy. not fps tarkov.
Devs answer what 4k 60fps ultra requirement is. If you don't have the hardware. Run it at lower settings. Clearly you're Console kid.
@@RandomPerson-tz7wk I was not talking about this specific game, I'm talking about the AAA market in general
@@Rivershield so you're complain have zero relevance to the video?
@@RandomPerson-tz7wk no, I'm just extrapolating based on general trends in the industry.
There's a general optimization issue in PC gaming and I bet this game is also a victim of it
@@Rivershield this trend have exist from the very first game. It's not new or recent. Except people forget all the other games in the past because they're not worth remembering.
And it's all about reputation. Faraxis don't pump out games every year like every other major AAA company and so far every game they've made is polish and stable from day one.
TF2: I dunno, just have a PC and you can run the game fine
Graphics card: optional
Can confirm. I use an Acer laptop and it still runs TF2 perfectly fine.
Apparently a turn based eagle eye view game needs more hardware power than an open world game.
Cpu power, yes. Always has been the case.
the eagle eye view games always need better cpu because of the thinking it takes to process all of that together
@@45_dhruvpandya20 I understand the joke. But still though, it's kinda crazy.
@@goldenzed6455we gonna need 32 core thread rippers soon
To be fair, Civ has always benefited from a higher core count. The amount of calculations that are being made when you have 10+ players with 100's of troops... it's a lot. I bet we'll see similar requirements fron Total War as well this gen
So true. Its basically a calculator making millions of calculations, specially whenever the AI is playing. Imagine playing Civ 7 on the government mega pc tho...
Yeah but in total war games you've got battles with thousands of soldiers. In Civ its MUCH less
Author of this short doesn't know what Civilization game is. Probably thinks it's Candy Crash or Fortnite clone.
@@pirotehs maybe, maybe not. Who knows?
@@pirotehs also no mention of the min being a ryzen 1200
The upcoming Red Dead Redemption 1 port for PC stated that the recommended GPU is a RTX 2070, which is insane for a 13 year old game.
They said they will release this game on PC with enhanced graphics
No dude its still crazy@@АнастасияРыжанкова-л1б
It depends if it's a straight port or a remake. Consol ports have also always run poorly because of console architecture needing another layer running to translate to PC.
@soaringparakeet. This statement is wrong since the P4/X1 because now they have some laptop hardware sliiightly tuned by manufacturer but it stay same chip as computer.
No more powerPc like the P3 and other true hardware they was seilling to us
@@Hank-Ulysse Read Dead Redemption is a ps3 game, thier statement hold true.
Instead of "can it run crisis" now it's "can it run civilization VII"
All CIV games had always and forever shall be CPU intensive. Even When CIV6 came out in 2016, it already recommend 8 core CPU.
With that logic Civ 8 will need 32 cores
Its like playing chess. Ure just analyzing billions of positions with stockfish so u need many cores. Except civ's ai is so bad at pruning (and lacks NNUE), that it takes forever just to make a shitty move anyway. No optimization whatsoever.
The solution is to just play multiplayer. Strategy games are not worth playing vs bots.
Civ has no AI, just a rulebook database. Civ 7 won't be any different i am afraid.
The 'AI' problem is so evident that they decided to make the game simpler so, maybe this time they can properly setup the AI so it can play the game at a decent level.
MP is the way. Only viable way anyway. Sadly, this particular game is not exactly Multiplayer friendly.
@@kerkertrandov459if i buy a game, ill play whatever i want. The game should run online and with AI.
That's how things used to be man. The gaming industry setting new standards for hardware developers. Oblivion was so greedy (and poorly optimizied) no GPU avilable was able to handle it w/o risking a fire
Oh don't remind me. I went out and bought a GPU in THE RECOMMENDED category just to play it. Not minimum requirement but recommended. Everything else about my rig was as good or better than recommended. I got home. Installed the card. Installed the game. Got out of the cave into the open world and lost my mind. I was so pissed. Their recommendations were based on like AVG 30 fps at low settings at 640x480. 😅
Turns out the minimum requirement was just to load the game without crashing. Not at all playable with the minimum.
Oh and I was so mad that I decided to pirate Skyrim when it came out. 😂
I wasted a lot of money on that card. I could've just upgraded to top teir Nvidia like I ended up doing a few months later. I figured that card must've been good off they recommended it for their new beautiful game.
The statement you are giving isnt tottaly true.
Yes video games is giving new standard for hardware but its only consumer sided statement.
Hardware manufacturer don't mind if there hardware can handle the last oblivion/crysis/cyberpunk (or if they do its just for increasing the price of the specific hardware wich is doing the job well).
Not to mention the phisical limit for what our chip is doing is going close.
Wich lead for even less hardware improvement room from manufacturer.
Optimisation is a really important job that editors volutary avoid since too long.
Now they will just be forced to do it since there is no breaktroug in hardware capacity
Oblivion? You can run that on a potato clock.
^also this, remember when crysis launched, and it took nearly 2 gens of vid card to make it's top supported res's stutter free
Saying a 16 core CPU probably has Intel in mind. Intel chips commonly have 16-24 cores now, even in laptops. But half or more of those are the efficiency cores that you really don't want trying to keep up with the calculations for the AI players.
CIV is clearly CPU bound game tho, the game probably will not need all the CPU but still is gonna make gameplay smoother if you have more core
CPU bound and needs an expensive RTX is insane
@@LordTrashcanRulez tbh, just don't play at 4k, 1080p and 1440p do just fine
@@LordTrashcanRulez It says you need a Rx 480 minimum bruh... that sounds fairly optimized.
Youre right but optimization in code design is a lost art as well
You will definitely need them probably especially when playing with 30 AI civs on huge maps with hundreds of barbs and unit spammed by AI impi spam.
For the massive strategy games, it's far more CPU bound than GPU. the degree and size of the databases involved are truly staggering. And speaking as one who played original Civ at launch, had my first all-night gaming sessions on "just one more turn" games, and consider grand strategy the true masterpieces of computer gaming ... MOAR CORES!
At this point I'll ask NASA if they have a PC for me
That’s odd. I checked Steam, and they mentioned a low-tier CPU, the Ryzen 3600X, as recommended, along with an RTX 2060 GPU. So, when we launch the game in 4K, the pressure will be on the GPU, not the CPU. So why is a more powerful CPU required?.
It's a strategy game that has a lot of simulations going at once so the CPU resources are "eaten" by those
@@AegieThe xcom 3 cpu requirements are gonna be insane. They're gonna need to bundle that lelease with an intel core ultra 9.
They put the hardware that they tested with.
The requirements might update as lower-tier hardware get tested
@@AegieDid you even read the question that the person asked? When you switch from 1080p to 4K the only thing that changes are the graphics. When you go from ultra low to ultra high settings the amount of calculations the game makes doesn't change.
@@kelderos nah I'm talking about the overall game not only resolution, I'm surprised minimal are so.low
Zack. We had enough of Gaming Requirements in 2024
Companies are not prioritizing Performance, because it would take them more money, so they just put the pressure on the Player
Monster hunter wilds requirements are a 4060 for 60 fps on 1080p with frame gen...
Don't forget to mention that that fps target is for "medium" settings
Im still pissed about this, i hope they pull their ass together and work on the optimizations
These devs need to be shut down for laziness
Its not only devs that are lazy...
Editors pressure them alot and dont let them optimize.
Last but not least, optimisation require alot of knowlege and the industry work like each buisness have his own r&d wich fall inevitably into 80% of games are optimisation junk.
@@Hank-Ulysse yeah i just hope they don't use denuvo again because that shit's trash and all the fanbase has been asking to get it out for years
They really want you to use the i9-14900k with 24 cores now that it isn't unstable anymore lol
Or is it? *Vsauce theme plays*
I'm lmao😂
But it has e-cores😂
7950x
I mean it is the best CPU
Not gonna deny that games are poorly optimized nowadays but if you ever played an strategy game like this you know the CPU is way more taxed than the GPU and the more you progress the more demanding it gets, the fact that it supposedly scales up to 32 threads is actually impressive.
Requiring a 4070 is way more egregious than requiring a 16 core CPU even for 4K since these games also don't use to have the best graphics.
I think devs are getting lazy with optimizing their games. Remember when pokemon games ran on 15MB cards? Theres no reason a game like Civilization should need a 4070 and 16 cores. The game should not be even close to that demanding.
Edit: Apparently after a long argument in the comments, you all seem to completely miss my point. Civilization is a game that should NOT require this type of hardware to run on it. The comparison was meant to compare how incredibly optimized and lower spec friendly games used to be. You’re treating this like I compared Cyberpunk to Flashgames but didn’t understand why I need a 4090 to run Cyberpunk if my pc can run flash games. Clearly theres a massive difference, but it was meant to emphasize the point I was making. Have we fallen so far that people don’t understand what exaggeration is?
while I don't disagree with your statement of some devs being lazy with optimization, the comparison make no sense at all. You're comparing a game from the late 90s to a game in 2024. Of course a game with 2d sprites is gonna take up less space and need less power than a fully 3d game with high quality textures
most of the memory is taken by textures, if you want lower vram usage simply lower the texture quality and terrain quality. I don't understand what do you mean by optimization. These games were using much less VRAM because their textures were bad! its not about optimization!
Whilst that's a good counter point to be said, it's really poor. There is a strong emphasis on the lack of skill nowadays, especially considering using OP's main point, as Gen 2 managed to optimise very well to the point where we had 2 regions in for a small memory cartridge. Compare that level of skill to the skill now and it makes no sense why current devs are this bad, even so with the advancements in dev tools. @@ChocoBidoof
A large reason for past optimisation to that point was the lack of a game engine like unity or Godot which while making development easier does make games run slower which is made up for with modern processing power, but yeah I still agree a lot of Devs don't bother with optimisation too hard but there's also a concept in game design where you try to optimise a game and actually make it worse in other areas a fun way to learn about this is to search for a yt video titled something like removing super mario 64s "optimisation" where they remove what Nintendo thought were optimisations to make the game run significantly better on a N64.
😂 Bro that's what I'm saying! I'm like Wtf? Civ? That shit should literally run on a potato, idc if it's Civ 10...
Wait for GTA 6 PC requirements
16 core CPU and Rtx5080 minimum for 1080p 💀
I feel like they’ll try to make the performance playable for that game so as many people can buy and play it
That sounds exciting actually
A massive triple A game that took a decade+ in the making
Imagine the DLCs and outside maps and missions they could have
Lmfao it’ll end up being so massive that it could last longer then GTA 5 currently, and longer then your favorite elder Scrolls game
Nah Gta games are the most optimised games on the planet so there is no way it will happen with Gta series. Maybe someother games
Nah Rockstar's known to optimise their games. For context when GTA 5 released, it could run on a GTX 660💀 which is a 2gig gpu
They're testing it on 2070s. Judging from the leaked test footage from a while back.
And thats why learning Assembly is great ft. Rollercoaster Tycoon
Who wants to run a civilization sim game at 4K 60fps anyways?
If you can why wouldn't you? If I paid for the GPU/CPU I'd wanna use the entire component.
It'd be nice too if graphics scaled dynamically, drops graphics as the game gets into the late stage of hella Ai and map on screen to maintain above 30 or 60fps. :p
People are just that desperate to escape reality bro
I'm looking forward to it.
@@MVPMTKING no need to waste the power for a civ game you are going to play for hundrets if not thousands of hours
Zach should do a part 2 on this video explaining WHY 16 is reccomended, its a game big on simulation of hundreds of Ai and player actions per turn. It saying 16 cores is rec. Is normal and can even be a good thing, it means the game engine can scale CPU usage upwards to be closer to 100% usage like GPUs do, meaning less bottleneck where games today use like 100% GPU and 25% of CPU which honestly kinda sucks a lil.
It's still ludicrous. Modern 4x games don't have anything close to that requirement despite being as big or bigger in need.
Moreover turn-based systems are inherently limited in the amount they need to do at once - you process one player at a time.
@@erikanybody4298 Civ 6 has simultaneous turns, I assume this will return in civ 7 as it helps speed up the game especially when players aren't even close to each other and not in war.
But again it's a reccomended not requirement, they say reccomended but what's likely happening (I'm assuming) is all its saying is the game is able to scale up core usage, if you got it they'll use it, if you don't thats fine, as for being 4k is dependent on GPU and VRAM, so even a lower end cpu can do 4k60 fine, up until the point there's hundreds of Ai actions happening simultaneously calculating stuff.
So for example a 4 core PC might be lagging at turn 200 with many Ai on the map.
Where as a 16 core would be chugging right through it. (Again just my assumption) but I'm 99.9% it's not required, people are taking it too literally.
@@erikanybody4298watch the video again. That's the recommend for 4k 60fps. Pretty reasonable. Assuming that everything is at max setting.
You can still play it at 1080, 1440, with 60fps with lower hardware. They recommend i5 10th gen 16gb for standard setting. For potato is the i5 4th Gen with 8gb as the minimum.
@RandomPerson-tz7wk Not to mention it's (likely) more just regarding how late game it is, later game = more Ai, thats when Civ 6 will start lagging. You can have an old low core cpu itll run it fine but you'll start feeling it in the later turns like 200/400.
@@MVPMTKING no amount of optimization can solve that unless the devs make the ai more dumber/simple in late game.
The only way to solve the late game would be placing hard limit on units for the whole game like every other rts.
“PA system” at the start got me
Yep, check out the mh wilds recommended specs. They stated a 6700xt should get 60fps @ 1080p MEDIUM WITH FRAME GEN AND UPSCALING 👀👀👀
That's disgusting
But 95% of people are only going to play at 1080p or 1440p so the requirements for 4k which is for less than 5% of people does make sense
Requirements for 1080p/1440p are also just getting worse these days. It's simply an optimization problem. A game like CIV shouldnt have these requirements even at 4k 60fps.
@@itshanhan1if it's not optimized, then why do games run fine on consoles?
@@tylerdurden3722 They dont bruh some game even such on PS5 in 1080p stuck at 30 fps..
Also development of PC and consoles is whole different thing
@@tylerdurden3722they stuck at 40fps at 1080p…
@@tylerdurden3722 What do I know? Idk why a game runs good on a console and then fails to run good on a PC that has better specs. I'm not a dev.
Here's a disagreement,
The game which has been mentioned needs more CPU power than GPU. Just look at it, how many different types of objects are there in just one view.
It's an appreciation that some developers figured out how they can use more than 4 cores efficiently.
"Doors2025". LMAO
what is it
"I feel attacked" me too😂. They be like "you're too broke to play civilization games"
I need every game on this planet to run with specs from the intro
I mean the fact civilization of all games is particularly CPU intensive isn't surprising because strategy games in general tend to, it might make for the one game where the 7950x3d is the best gaming cpu 😂
It's a fucking (very fun) turn based glorified tabletop game series. How much of a resource hog do your models and ai have to be that you need 16 fucking cores to make them need that much power to run at 60 frames? Are they mining crypto in the background?
32gb? New standard? I have 8gb on my pc 😭
32GB wil be minimum in 2025
It's time to upgrade your RAM.
Because in 2024, 32GB DDR4 dual channel 3200MHz RAM is quite affordable.
no, but I think that 16gb is the new standard
@@artificialintelligencebird just save and get 32 don't screw yourself a year down the line like that
@@CMarkem 16gb is the new standard for an average user i have 32gb since you need 32gb for gaming
It's the best chip for FPS games where there aren't many processes to calculate, but in a heavy strategy game where you have different AI players, you're better with more cores that do little calculations
A lot of this is probably because they don't want to optimize there game and figure "eh they wanna play they'll get better equipment"
Or the engine is basing a lot of things on the CPU. I'm not into continuously checking CPU and GPU benchmarks anymore but I think Civ 6 turn times are dependant on the CPU. I think gamer's Nexus had benchmarks on them.
The bot logic or "classic" AI enemies are trying to win a complex game of chess against you. It requires complex decision trees to be solved. If their data set is big enough or they are using a lot of variables you need that absurd amount of simultaneous multiprocessing on hand. With a crap load of RAM.
If it is justified and the AI turn calculations are pretty good and sensible then I think the high requirements are justified. If you want quick turns.
If this isn't the case... Somebody should set a bonfire infront of the sutido in a dingus shape....
Would be if it was an mmo and not a strategy game where you have to simulate a lot of AI doing different things at the same time. Most people just don't play strategy games enough to know cpu bottle necks has always been their crutch. Back in the day they many didn't even support muti core processors making them lag like crazy.
Imagine an army of 1 million soldier with different skills and abilities fight against another 1 million strong army with also different skills and actions. Most if not all pcs except epyc cpus will proly blue screen lol
But you are right optimization should really be a standard in the industry
Have people really forgotten that this is how game evolution always was? Upgrading your PC was always more or less a response to newer, more advanced and more demanding games. The issue is hardware prices escalating like crazy.
People want better and bigger games, but dont want to upgrade their hardware with them. I'd say, that is a gamer issue.
And yes, I do also acknowledge the optimization issue. But there should always be an increase in hardware demands. Otherwise no real development has happened.
I mean, my 6 core 12 thread (i7 8700K) machine struggles with Civ 6 when you get into the last part of the game as so much of the map is revealed and so much things need to be calculated.
Maybe this is caused by denuvo.
@@ElCidCampeador1994 Are you trolling?
Ryzen 4070 still solos Civ 7 negative diff at infinite multiversal times over
Ryzen 4070?? Lmao get that fodder GPU past Planetary level
Um... What?
@@-Cocellsome nonsensical internet cocaine snorting meme comments ignore them
*ryzen 4080 and ryzen 4090 entered chat*
Imagine being this unfunny. Its sad
"potatoe" Got me😂
"PA system" sound card 😭😭😭
Its a Civlilization game, you can play it well at 20 fps, the only thing that would matter would be the time to advance another turn, which could very well minutes on older hardware, in late game
panning the camera at 20fps is not it
@@beetrootlife You'll get used to it after 500 hours of playing at it.
@@henriproosyep. Been playing civ 6 at 20 fps for over a year now. Switching from 30 to 20 fps has made late game a better experience.
@@henriproosive got over 2000hrs on eu4 and 20fps is not pleasant
I dont understand a thing why gaming companies dont optimize their game everybodies are not rich it is to understand by gaming companies sad but reality 😢😢
Zach can you please make a vid detailing what cpu “cores” and “threads” mean? Odds are low that you even see this comment but if you do itd be much appreciated. Big fan by the way.
"Cores" mean the amount of brains that the cpu have
And "threads" mean the speed that the brains perform
Like 8 cores 16 threads mean that it has 8 brains and they perform like it is 16.
@@BernardoHenr919 thats really helpful dude. Appreciate it.
@@BernardoHenr919 not entirely true, tmk hyperthreading has always been more like a 30% performance boost, with the main reason it was done being to increase efficiency
@@tobyconner5827 i explained wrong because it is the easiest way
@@tobyconner5827 no need to argue im just gonna search up a vid lol, thanks for your guyses help
bro game devs just forgot waht optimisation is
The issue to me is the fact that companies put 0 effort into optimization. Now that we have DLSS and FSR, it has made it EVEN WORSE because they rely on you using one of these. Rather than idk, actually optimizing for different types of hardware 😂 they just crank the recommended specs so they can say, "Your system doesn't meet the required specs" when their game runs terribly even for high end hardware.
Zack, im still waiting on a ryzen 4070 3d print. The eager fans are waiting...
OMG YES
I know you get no girls 😂
@ImSizo thats not an insult we got the boys
”Optimisation is a forgotten art” -sun tzu, art of optimisation
Lol I still have a 2080Ti (that is a now, 6 year old GPU) and when I look at these for newer games, the 2080Ti equivalent, or really the 3070-3070Ti can always run these games at Ultra, 1440p and 60fps or High, 1440p and 120fps. And it’s always spot on. Im upgrading soon, but this card is still out here killin it for me and keeping my hobby going. And it came out SIX years ago lol
Stop 4K playing lol…solved the issue right there (sarcasm)
that's not the proplem, like other grand strategy and 4x games civ is very heavy on cpu bec of it's complex simlation that needs lot of complex calculations to run which in turn needs a lot of cpu power
so it's bec of it's complex simlation not grafics (which stil needs cpu power on top of the complex simlation)
@@mohamed_alaa- And they still recommend you to use a 500-600€ GPU on top of a ridiculous CPU. It's still an optimization problem.
@@itshanhan1 how much money you want to pay to play 4k?
@@mohamed_alaa- I don't want to play 4k and this is not my issue. I'm just generally saying that games should be optimized better since a game like CIV shouldn't need a 4070 to play 4k.
@@itshanhan1 all other games need a 4070 to play 4k , why do you expect civ to not?
How do you even make a game that requires SIXSTEEN CORES?? for GAMING??
Easy, make 32 parallel network requests in the title screen to fetch individual words of the paragraph.
Civ is a totally different game than say a shooter or rpg.
On huge maps in the endgame there are hundreds and thousands of troops that have to be moved. More and faster cores means less time waiting for the npcs to make their moves.
@@despairdx lil bro where are we going eventually? Hyper realistic games aren't a new thing, the 5090 at best is supposed to be the last gpu because it would literally be the most powerful stuff on the planet. Achieving further will eventually be useless because limits are set.
Brother did you not comprehend the video? That's for reccomended so it doesn't lag late game when there's hella player and Ai actions being done.
The minimum is a ryzen 3 1200 4 core (2017 cpu) this is pretty forgiving.
And minimum GPU is RX 460, an extremely low end 8 year old GPU by today's standard.
@@MVPMTKING nah I got the video but cores and threads are usually less important for gaming so having a game that needs 16 cores and 32 threads to run even if its at max settings 4k is just insane. especially considering the 7800x3d is the best gaming cpu and only has 8 cores
""What are we doing here man?"
Building a functional particle accelerator 💀
I don't get why increased resolution would warrant such a massive increase in needed CPU power.
Welp, guess imma play Age of History 3 instead.
It's a strategy game so I'm not surprised unless the game recommendations are that high due to poor optimisation.
STOP thinking you need 4k
You don't
true, but anyways that game need so much gpu and cpu power in 1080p
Intel shines here. 14700k with it's 20 cores can do this with ease IF proper settings are in place for the microcode. I own the 14700k and have yet to experience ANY issues.
You could play Civ at 20fps and it’s totally playable. There’s no real time reactions needed, plus it’s always been brutal on the CPU calculating all the turns that are needed.
Games like civ or anno are notoriously difficult to run because while it's not a scientific simulation, it's constantly simulating everything going on. That's why they suggest having such a high core count. Also the 32 gigs of ram is linked with the core count. As a general rule of thumb you don't want less than 2gb of ram per core.
Star Citizen: "Am I a joke to you?"
I was more blown back by the monster hunter wilds requirements only being for 1080p and requiring frame generation
True but another part of it is that people's standard have increased when playing games, with most people wanting to play from 1440p to 4K, back then people mostly played on 1080p that's why games can run fine than they are now. My point is the Resolution is another factor. And of course the demanding system spec most games want nowadays.
Devs (project manager?) have lost interest in optimizing the game. If it can't be done within a certain amount of time, just increase the requirements. If there's a memory leak, the game just requires more RAM
I believe its optimised for 16 cores. Keep in mind it turned based so its not like you will get crap frames the turns will most likely just take longer.
A simulation game like civ uses the CPU to simulate the economy, populations, AIs and many other things that can’t be run on GPU.
Other games use small CPU simply because all they do is process graphics and their logic is not well optimized for multi-core processor even though the industry direction has been adding more and more cores. Civ using so much core is a good sign because its means that the code is well optimized and the dev knows what they are doing.
I work with simulations and processing huge amount of data and its pretty common to work with thousands of CPU cores
those strategy games are crazy. Crusader King 3 in high setting(1080p) can insta draw 90%+ usage of my 32G rams and rx 6600. And it's straight from a new game start not in some late game stage.
so did the City Skyline 2
Strategy games were always more CPU intensive, that's why. On the other hand, Civilization is a series with a lot of players (especially casual players), so the system specs feels overkill to most of their target audience. Also, if Civ VII follows the same DLCs approach and update cycle than the previous game, it will receive new content for about a decade, so I guess that Firaxis (the developer) wants to make sure the game is future-proof (and in about five years or so, these recommended specs will be much less absurd than they are today).
Its been a recent thing that people have been expecting games to run at max settings right away. Most of PC gaming history company's aim max settings for hardware that isnt even out yet. Crysis anyone? Doom 3's max settings required 512mb of Vram. Only 1 card had that and That card had just came out. Digital Foundry has a video called "Do You Really Need Ultra Settings? What To Keep, What To Cut" from 6 years ago. Just set the graphics preset to "High" or "Medium" and play the game. You would probably need side by side comparisons to tell the diff anyway.
Civ VII: How rich do you want to be?
PC Specs Stores: Yes.
I'm just glad that they set requirements for 16 cores. That means that they have put in a lot of work to parallelize the calculations to actually use the CPU efficiently.
All the requirements attacked my wallet.
They have Mac version coming but given how complex it is, it’ll be Apple Silicon exclusive. And you’ll likely need Max or higher version of the Apple Silicon to play at max res and framerate.
Always buy a Entry level PC specs, now adays there is no Future Proof PC hardware
Problem is in future the minimum/recommended will be the 4090 and i9/ryzen 9
Recommended Sound Card PA System😂
The problem is the lack of optimization nowadays all gaming companies are a buggy mess of a shit ton of assets
The requirements are increasing, but also the players expectations about the games. When Skyrim was released I thought it was such a good looking game. At 1080p. I never imagined playing a game in 4K at 60 fps back then
Dlss and fsr have been absolutely disastrous for optimization, at what point do we stop blaming the publishers and start seeing the devs as lazy
The i7 only has 8 cores which are relevant for gaming. The other 4 cores are efficiency cores, which dont do much for gaming
The 9900x also has 12 cores, 4 core short of the requirement.
Civ has always been notorious for massive CPU demands. This isn't a surprise at all
Windows 98 is crazy I have windows 10
arbitrary engine upgrades force you to upgrade your hardware while optimisation will always be the redheaded stepchild
Here's an example of the system requirements being unrealistic. My husband and I can't really afford damanding or top of the line PCs. He's been playing space marines 2 and helldivers with an i7 7700k, 16gb of ram, and a gtx 970. He's not playing in 4k cause he thinks it's overrated, but he's been playing high on 1080p. No issues.
I think it's more the numbers of those parts and performance that dictates the game vs the actual parts.
It doesn't help that pc and game companies forget that a large majority of their fan/player base can't afford the newer stuff.
It's funny how many people say that dinky little cpu is the beat gaming cpu, it's not. It's the best at a certain price point. We are moving towards gaming that is going to get more and more resource intensive.
A lot of rts, Builder games and driving/flying sims are really cpu heavy and a 7800x3d is really only half a processor designed around low latency. Thats why it wins in most games and gets dragged in almost everything else.
A game that wants 16 cores to me tells me it is at least programmed well enough to take advantage of modern hardware even if it is really demanding.
Games in the future requiring a server size hardware
How does this man not understand that having more events cycling in the background for world building can require extra threads. Wow this is the direction that all games are going to facilitate immersion, it absolutely depends on the amount of different calculations required for randomization or to scale with the players abilities. I’m sure the game will still play with Less, but it will chop out some of the higher end features which probably also require a bit of AI running on the system.
12700k, you have same with me
Up from 6700k, no regret it
Althought i want try AMD but it sold out that time in my country
As someone who plays simulation type games far more than the typical FPS shooter I shake my head when everyone professes 8-core cpus as all you will ever need, and 16 cores are reserved for “productivity”.
System requirements were a lot worse 20 years ago though. Had to update your pc like every two years just to be able to play new games, unless 10 fps was ok for you. Now it's more like 4+ years for updates. More if you can tolerate the lowest settings.
I play cyberpunk at 1080p ultra settings with my gtx 1660ti. Fsr quality and frame gen 3 got me to 80fps with no input lag added. Amd’s software is a godsend for old card users.
Wouldn't it look much better without upscaling on mid settings?
16 cores as in 16 threads, they just named it wrong in the requirements
WarThunder or in general Gaijin games, are known for their very good performance while looking good on bad hardware. I think the req. for it is 4GB of RAM. There is no way civ has such giant textures at minimum settings to require 8x that!